TED Conversations

chen xin

This conversation is closed.

why money money money ?money !why ?do we really need money ?

how many people are burdened of money . without money can't we live a life full of happiness you know money is not a natural thing ,
i find out that money is one of the most popular words that used on ted..compared to money .i am more about to talk about the nature or enery

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 1 2012: we all need just one universal currency that we all use.
    • thumb
      Oct 1 2012: why? we don't use a single bank, we don't have a single cellphone provider, we don't eat chocolate of the same make. why do we need money from a central source? how does it help?
      • Oct 1 2012: He was just saying we could make do with one currency (which is correct, we don't need currencies to compete with each other). That would make it easier to trade and it would hinder currency speculators.

        Btw, Krisztian, I would like to know what your definition of money is?

        @below

        It matters because "money" is such a vague word. A dollar, a food stamp and an energy credit are all mediums of exchange, but not everyone would call all of them to be money.
        • thumb
          Oct 1 2012: i don't know if it worth really defining too precisely. i would go with:

          money is a commodity that is primarily or exclusively used as a medium of exchange. that is, we usually buy it not to use it but to buy something else with it.
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2012: There's an interesting concept that money, as a claim on productivity, could be created and issued individually in our modern information rich world. This is the basic concept behind BitCoin. I think this concept points to the future. We need a better financial system than the one we've been living with for centuries.
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2012: " food stamp and an energy credit are all mediums of exchange,"

          no, in my opinion, and here you are, i extend the definition: money also must be able to be freely sold and bought. a food stamp can only be received from government, can not be sold, and can only be used at certain places, then they should be returned to the issuer. this is not free use, so it is not money.

          however, cigarettes in a prison is money.

          and be reminded that there are gray areas. so definition must be vague on some level. what about a freely transferable coupon? what about a bond? for these to be money, we need to look at the usage pattern. people mostly buy to use or to resell? if the latter, it is money.
      • Oct 2 2012: Krisztian, thanks for clarifying. I agree with you that not all mediums of exchange are money. That is why I believe the world can do without money, even though I don't believe the world can do without a medium of exchange (for rationing purposes), at least not until we have a huge abundance of resources available for everyone (this could take centuries or it may never happen at all if the human population starts growing again in the future or humans will consciously decide not to consume all available natural resources as quickly as they can, to preserve ecosystems and resource reserves.)

        @below

        I'm not so sure the current system is inevitable: for one the only reason people let banks get away with their dirty tricks, using other people's money, is the fact that the government has agreed to back personal accounts to a certain degree, therefore the banks have a monopoly on keeping safe moderate amounts of money. The financial sector largely exists by the grace of the government (no doubt thanks to the financial sector lobbying and donating). The corporation itself is a legal construct propped ub by the state!

        I think in a truly unregulated society most people would opt out of currency and institutions that are subject to speculation. Nobody ever voted to give currency speculators the power to influence the purchasing power of unrelated millions, but it still happens because the state allows it and forces people to use the currency of the central bank.

        I'm not advocating getting rid of all governments, I'm merely saying that people didn't choose the system as it is today and now that it's here they don't get the choice to change it, so it's a bit of a stretch to assume every complex economy would come up with the same currency system.

        P.S. I'm talking about problems with transferable, saveable and investable money, not just the banking system. I do think most people (especially outside America) would prefer some kind of social dividend if they had the choice.
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2012: the world can do without hamburgers. but if you let people do their stuff freely, hamburgers will be made, sold and bought. because there are people willing to consume and people willing to produce hamburgers, and we have the means to do so. hamburgers create satisfaction.

          similarly, money naturally emerges in a complex economy. money creates satisfaction.
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2012: we were talking about money, not the current banking system and its unholy alliance with the state. these people hijacked and now control money, and practically outlawed all other forms of money, knowing that no person in the right mind will choose theirs. but that is not the problem of money. the problem is banks and the state. getting rid of money does not solve that problem.
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2012: @:John Smith, I agree with much of what you say. I've also learned in my investigations of money that money currently exists ONLY as debt. If all debt could be paid off (it can't), there would be no money. This monetary system is designed so that the creation and control of money remains in the domain of the rentier clas, who live off the interest created by debt.
          This system is NOT inevitable. Historically, in the US, there has been an ongoing struggle between those who think creation and control of money should be in private hands, and those who think it should be in the public domain. Since the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, private interests have prevailed.
          There is currently legislation proposed that would bring creation and control of money back into the public domain. HR2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act of 2011 would do this. (See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR02990:@@@L&summ2=m&)
          I encourage those in the US who believe that the authority to create and control money should be returned to the public domain to promote and support this legislation.
          An alternative is to spend our time spouting our personal, unsupported and undocumented opinions here.
          @Krisztián I don't think we can talk about money without including the current banking system, and the need to reform it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.